[kortilla]

> I think you're describing style errors, not grammar errors.

The entire thread (not started by me) is about nit-picking punctuation and now you’re trying to explain to me that I’m describing style errors. So what? It’s useless feedback regardless of which chapter in the Holy Google Docs covers it.

> Asking people to use good grammar (and capitalize/punctuate) those sentences as though they were documentation (because they are!) is valuable for reviewers.

Right, it’s valuable for the reviewers because it makes it seem like they provided feedback when they have nothing of substance to add. It’s not valuable for the author though nor is it realistically valuable to future people reading the code in question.

>I say this as someone who, when reading unfamiliar code, is able to understand it more readily if the inline documentation is easy to read.

I think maybe you don’t know what “nitpick” means. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nitpick

If it has a meaningful impact on the ability to read it, it’s not a nitpick.

[joshuamorton]

My experience differs. Consistent and well formed prose in docstrings and comments absolutely helps reason about unfamiliar code. Nitpicking for good formatting, spelling, and grammar is valuable in code comments just the same as in documentation or any other form of technical writing.

If the comments aren't important enough to spend care and thought on, they should be deleted.

> If it has a meaningful impact on the ability to read it, it’s not a nitpick.

This is boring semantics. Given what you describe as nitpicks, we draw the line of meaningful impact on readability in different places. So I'm claiming that some of the things you describe as nitpicks in fact aren't.